https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=23875
--- Comment #8 from Katrin Fischer <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Ere Maijala from comment #7) > (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #6) > > I am not sure if I understand the issue compeletely, but why would > > local-number be scary as a number? local-number is usually the biblionumber, > > right? And if it is, I am in doubt about what Nick says that you could just > > remap it to 001 - at least I would expect issues with that. > > Yes, it's usually biblionumber, but there's nothing preventing one from e.g. > adding other fields in it too. Unless we hard-code a field for biblionumber, > we can't positively say it's always a number. > > > If we don't sort numerical... that meanst 9 999 2 22 1 11 ... something like > > that? > > Yes. Maybe we should have an unchangeable index for biblionumber then? The sorting could quickly become an issue. People tend to search very 'broadly' and then the tie breaker would come in quickly. At least that's what we see with Zebra quite often with searches for single words and similar. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
